Is Z-Max worth a [censored]?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: Clevy
Is it better than my proven MOS2 for 8 bucks a can,I doubt it but Carroll Shelby put it in every mustang his company built.

Carroll Shelby, rest his soul, would recommend anything that gave him sponsorship dollars.
wink.gif
 
Originally Posted By: Clevy

From what I remember its a additive used in the aviation industry. It coats metal so that nothing can stick to it,which eliminated any possible power robbing deposit formations.
And because the coated metals were so slick it reduced friction wherever there was a contact point in the engine. The pistons slid easier,cams turned with less parasitic loss.
Lets just take into consideration the were attacked by some governing agency then at some point they proved to this governing agency it did something because the governing agency ended up backing off.


You should be doing cliffs notes for a living.
There were 3 major issues people had with this additive:
1. Price
2. MSDS stating 99% mineral oil
3. The defense was done by a hired gun, testing was paid by Zmax, and it was not fully scientific.

I also found some results of UOA showing no difference whatsoever. Thus I'm neutral on the whole deal.
 
Originally Posted By: friendly_jacek
Originally Posted By: Clevy

From what I remember its a additive used in the aviation industry. It coats metal so that nothing can stick to it,which eliminated any possible power robbing deposit formations.
And because the coated metals were so slick it reduced friction wherever there was a contact point in the engine. The pistons slid easier,cams turned with less parasitic loss.
Lets just take into consideration the were attacked by some governing agency then at some point they proved to this governing agency it did something because the governing agency ended up backing off.


You should be doing cliffs notes for a living.
There were 3 major issues people had with this additive:
1. Price
2. MSDS stating 99% mineral oil
3. The defense was done by a hired gun, testing was paid by Zmax, and it was not fully scientific.

I also found some results of UOA showing no difference whatsoever. Thus I'm neutral on the whole deal.



I guess that answers the question on whether its worth it or not then doesn't it.
I bought it once years ago,put it in the work van I was driving. It did absolutely nothing as far as fuel economy and noise were concerned so I never tried it again.
Its labelled as something else for the aviation industry and can be found much cheaper under that name,so if a person wanted to use it they would be better off buying it under that brand name.
 
Quote:


The defense was done by a hired gun, testing was paid by Zmax, and it was not fully scientific.


BTW, and for the record, I considered Johnny a good friend and still do. He's effectively a northern neighbor about 200 miles from me in Wis.

The problem was mainly some of the claims made by Zmax that just didn't make sense in terms of lubrication engineering and physics.

I actually spoke to the other chemists and principles of Zmax and none would supply any real data or logic to support Zmax's claims.

A list of ASTM test data was given but, IMHO they were basically smokescreens that skirted the questions asked by not only me, but other engineers, chemists, and tribologists.

I did some simple tests on my own and did not find any mpg improvements, rust inhibition, improvements in the oil results, or improvements in performance.

The only thing I did find was that when using the stated additive dosages the oil was thinned out somewhat, since the base oil is about a 3.5 cSt viscosity at 100C.

It appeared the base oil was a Yubase GroupIII. If there is a 1% of something else in there, we never did find it since the insolubles and solids showed zilch.

If it contained some ceramic component such as a boron compound, it would have shown traces of that element plus some insolubles and or solids.

So if anyone uses it, do a voa of the oil + Zmax mix and then do at least three UOA's.

As far as the FAA or engine approvals, I regard that simply as Zmax lobbying.
 
Originally Posted By: MolaKule


It appeared the base oil was a Yubase GroupIII. If there is a 1% of something else in there, we never did find it since the insolubles and solids showed zilch.



How do you know that?
Don't roots of this additive go way back to 1940's or so?
Group 3 oils were obviously not known back then.
 
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Quote:


The defense was done by a hired gun, testing was paid by Zmax, and it was not fully scientific.


BTW, and for the record, I considered Johnny a good friend and still do. He's effectively a northern neighbor about 200 miles from me in Wis.

The problem was mainly some of the claims made by Zmax that just didn't make sense in terms of lubrication engineering and physics.

I actually spoke to the other chemists and principles of Zmax and none would supply any real data or logic to support Zmax's claims.

A list of ASTM test data was given but, IMHO they were basically smokescreens that skirted the questions asked by not only me, but other engineers, chemists, and tribologists.

I did some simple tests on my own and did not find any mpg improvements, rust inhibition, improvements in the oil results, or improvements in performance.

The only thing I did find was that when using the stated additive dosages the oil was thinned out somewhat, since the base oil is about a 3.5 cSt viscosity at 100C.

It appeared the base oil was a Yubase GroupIII. If there is a 1% of something else in there, we never did find it since the insolubles and solids showed zilch.

If it contained some ceramic component such as a boron compound, it would have shown traces of that element plus some insolubles and or solids.

So if anyone uses it, do a voa of the oil + Zmax mix and then do at least three UOA's.

As far as the FAA or engine approvals, I regard that simply as Zmax lobbying.



Thanks for the breakdown Molekule. I appreciate you sharing and helping me understand many things that are discussed on this board better.
 
Originally Posted By: friendly_jacek
Originally Posted By: MolaKule


It appeared the base oil was a Yubase GroupIII. If there is a 1% of something else in there, we never did find it since the insolubles and solids showed zilch.



How do you know that?
Don't roots of this additive go way back to 1940's or so?
Group 3 oils were obviously not known back then.
 
Oh man, the timeout got me.

Originally Posted By: friendly_jacek
Originally Posted By: MolaKule


It appeared the base oil was a Yubase GroupIII. If there is a 1% of something else in there, we never did find it since the insolubles and solids showed zilch.



How do you know that?
Don't roots of this additive go way back to 1940's or so?
Group 3 oils were obviously not known back then.


This is why I said, "appeared to be," an educated guees. I compared it to some Yubase low vis I had in the lab.

Back in the 40's the most likely oil used was a white paraffinic and or naphthenic mineral oil.

But owing to their vague and equivocal language,

http://www.zmax.com/documents/testing_summary.pdf

Quote:
zMAX is derived from a highly refined mineral oil that undergoes a proprietary process involving specific molecular rearrangement. It has a kinematic viscosity of 11.5 cSt @ 40 °C and 3.00 cSt @ 100 °C, a Surface Tension of 27.75 dynes/cm @
20°C, and an API gravity of 36.6. A comparison of the high temperature distillation results of zMAX versus the mineral oil used for its production reveal zMAX having a slightly higher boiling range than the originating mineral oil. Chemical analyses using gas chromatography and mass spectroscopy conducted by Triton Analytics Corporation (Houston, TX) show a greater concentration of linear hydrocarbon chains in zMAX than in mineral oil.


It seems today to be either a highly distilled parafinnic oil or an isomerized oil which would make it a group III.
 
I read his thread and he was too scattered and too combative to really figure out the cause and effect. I guess Zmax could have contributed by lowering viscosity. Maybe the effects of Zmax is simply viscosity lowering?
 
Originally Posted By: friendly_jacek
I read his thread and he was too scattered and too combative to really figure out the cause and effect. I guess Zmax could have contributed by lowering viscosity. Maybe the effects of Zmax is simply viscosity lowering?


I read something about zmax and prevention of deposits adhering to anything zmax has treated.
So I think zmax keeps internals clean,which does benefit the engine. Other than that I know of no friction reduction capabilities
 
Originally Posted By: friendly_jacek
I read his thread and he was too scattered and too combative to really figure out the cause and effect. I guess Zmax could have contributed by lowering viscosity. Maybe the effects of Zmax is simply viscosity lowering?


For some reason you are the only one that can't understand it.

ZMAX works for me, my family, my friends, and pretty much everyone that have tried it. It does not work for those that have never tried it. I run it in all of my vehicles (motorcycles included) and I keep track of fuel mileage religiously (well, for tax purposes actually).
 
Last edited:
Well, I tried it. Back when Johnny was excited about it, I bought a lot of it when it was on sale.

The best I can say is that it didn't hurt mpg. Didn't help it either.
 
Originally Posted By: Trajan
Well, I tried it. Back when Johnny was excited about it, I bought a lot of it when it was on sale.

The best I can say is that it didn't hurt mpg. Didn't help it either.


I tried it in a few different vehicles. The vehicles didn't run any differently,fuel economy was unaffected.
I know Johnny really believed in it,and to be honest I though of him to be very knowledgeable and his posts were such that he certainly seemed very experienced,so I'm kinda at a loss.
I believed and trusted Johnny but I just don't know what to make of z-max.
Carroll Shelby seemed to like the stuff,whether he really did or just said so I don't know for sure.
I think it prevents deposits from ever becoming an issue,which keeps it factory clean,which would maintain factory performance.
As far as anything else I just can say. My experience with it was not good or bad.
There are additives that actually work that cost less and actually keep money in my jeans,so I'll stick with the ones I know work.
 
Quote:
For some reason you are the only one that can't understand it.

ZMAX works for me, my family, my friends, and pretty much everyone that have tried it. It does not work for those that have never tried it. I run it in all of my vehicles (motorcycles included) and I keep track of fuel mileage religiously (well, for tax purposes actually).


Help us understand what component or components in Zmax imparts what protection and performance advantages?
 
Another Canadian member from down east tried it some years back without success. I've never tried it, and likely won't. Some people love it, some people hate it. Carroll Shelby's endorsement doesn't do much for me. Rest his soul, but he's endorsed a lot of hokey products over the years, as long as they could pony up the money. I should look up my Car & Driver magazines. They were telling tribute stories about him from back in the day. He even had his own brand of underarm deodorant.
 
I likely won't try it primarily due to its high price. Some people swear by it though, I know Johnny was well respected here.
 
There's quite a following in aviation. Cleaner parts was its primary benefit.

I am in the 'too expensive' camp. Not much ROI for the average car IMO.
 
Originally Posted By: panthermike
I likely won't try it primarily due to its high price. Some people swear by it though, I know Johnny was well respected here.


Johnny was a great guy but I'm not sure his credentials were associated with tribology, physical chemistry or the like. That's not knocking Johnny as he had a ton of experience and knowledge and was good to share it. I wish he were back.

But the questions really are true - was that analytical work worth a darn? Was years of experience on Johnny's part out of the ordinary or would the good results have been the ame without this product?

From a product standpoint, if the isomerized base fluid is so important, wouldnt I ge the same result running Amsoil TCW-3 with its syn basestock? If this stuff is a solvent, is it better than LC20, which also has antioxidant capabilities?

The fundamental compounds may well have some activity that does some benefit, but like most adds, this is tough to tell. Its not like situations where one is using a solvent to clean something quick, and you see it, or using a fresh, bright fluid in place of an older one and you see the old fluid dispersed in it. This is a minority component, with dubious claims.

That said, I have bought some, I do run LC20 and a variety of fuel adds, so I personally believe there is something to be said for using good adds with a specific purpose.
 
Johnny's cred came as an employee of shell. He had direct access to their engineers and process folks.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

O
Bought a PC local. What is it really worth?
2 3
Replies
42
Views
3K
Pew
edyvw
Turo Rental: 2022 Toyota Sienna Hybrid
4 5 6
Replies
114
Views
8K
ARB1977
A
  • Locked
Upgrading to a more efficient truck
2 3 4
Replies
64
Views
6K
surfstar
T
Is a hybrid right for my commute?
8 9 10
Replies
185
Views
12K
doublebase
Hermann
A pleasant trip to the Ozark's in the Venza
Replies
11
Views
2K
Cujet
Back
Top